- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
you realize that most scientists view the above as laws of science don't you? They would not call them laws if they changed every year. For the most part, they are steady. That is why they are laws. So I don't really understand your comment here. Secondly, everything that is unprovable is to be taken by faith. If a christian believes in faith that Jesus died for their sins, then so too the evolutionist believes by faith that we evolved out of primordial ooze. In the above cases, neither were there to eye witness what happened and both are unproven to this day. at least in the case of Jesus, most historians actually believe He existed. But in the case of primordial ooze, there really is no laboratory experiment that can replicate creating full proteins and amino acids from any liquid that does not already have them in it. Even if you electrocuted said liquid till you are red in the face. This by the way is the sole experiment which led to many scientists believing in primordial ooze as the origin of organic matter. (the miller urey experiment failure)I don't consider them to be "laws". Everything is subject to change. Nothing in science should be taken on faith.
Last edited:
Upvote
0